Jump to content

Lightship Advertised for Sale

NigelMoore

By NigelMoore
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Athy Veteran II

AthyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

No Paul, the three points that I made above are all facts and can easily be verified.

 

 

Since you said "I don't agree", you were indeed expressing an opinion, and I'm sure that Paul was referring to that part of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

No Paul, the three points that I made above are all facts and can easily be verified.

 

 

 

You can't say they "sought to cover up......." because they didn't, and don't need to provide a reason why the original answer was not answered fully. Its your opinion that it is a cover up. I'm not disputing your other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

Nope, all I'm saying is, this "bogus bailiff" claim doesn't have legs. Its irrelevant, and a case of too little too late now. The boat's gone, the opportunity to negotiate/pay the mooring fees/stay in Liverpool is gone. For example it might be reasonable to ask, what's the best case scenario here? The dock is owned by CRT and they're not going to allow the boat back now, under its current ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

Nope, all I'm saying is, this "bogus bailiff" claim doesn't have legs. Its irrelevant, and a case of too little too late now. The boat's gone, the opportunity to negotiate/pay the mooring fees/stay in Liverpool is gone. For example it might be reasonable to ask, what's the best case scenario here? The dock is owned by CRT and they're not going to allow the boat back now, under its current ownership.

Completely wrong Paul. 'Bogus bailiffs' is very relevant as it forms part of Mr Roberts application for an injunction tomorrow.

 

However, that is only my opinion based on the wording of the claim filed with the court. I suggest you read it also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Completely wrong Paul. 'Bogus bailiffs' is very relevant as it forms part of Mr Roberts application for an injunction tomorrow.

 

However, that is only my opinion based on the wording of the claim filed with the court. I suggest you read it also.

read where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

Completely wrong Paul. 'Bogus bailiffs' is very relevant as it forms part of Mr Roberts application for an injunction tomorrow.

 

However, that is only my opinion based on the wording of the claim filed with the court. I suggest you read it also.

 

Just because they've stuck it in the injunction application doesn't make it relevant.....I've read the claim, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

Just because they've stuck it in the injunction application doesn't make it relevant.....I've read the claim, thanks.

Do you not think the recorded telephone conversation between Ben White and Alan Roberts is significant? He more or less admits that some people present at the seizure were posing as High Court Enforcement Officers I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geo Rising Star

Geo

Posted
Posted

Lightship%20Injunction%20Order_zpsolpbqw

 

That is a sensible move it brings the matter into court. So tomorrow morning could be interesting at Chester Civil & Family Justice Centre. Has anyone briefed the Press to attend?

 

Nigel do you have a complete copy of the survey if so could you either PM or email me a copy, I am interested in the general state of the vessel bearing in mind, if I remember correctly, there was a comment by possibly CRT that the vessel was not safe etc and was one of the reasons on top of the money interest for the seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Iain_S Influencer

Iain_S

Posted
Posted

Sorry Paul, I don't agree. The police sought to cover up the incident by not providing the documents I requested but rather put spin on them. The only reason they are in the public domain is because -

 

1. I requested them through whatdotheyknow.com.

 

2. I requested that they carry out an internal review of the decision not to provide me with the recorded information.

 

3. They are required by law to provide the information.

 

There is a difference between attending an incident to assist one of the parties and attending an incident to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Police would attend only to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace. Even if attending at the request of "High Court Enforcement Officers" (which, in this case, it would appear they were not (Read this both ways!) ), the Police would not get involved in the actual seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geo Rising Star

Geo

Posted
Posted

 

The Police would attend only to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace. Even if attending at the request of "High Court Enforcement Officers" (which, in this case, it would appear they were not (Read this both ways!) ), the Police would not get involved in the actual seizure.

 

A police involvement in the seizure could happen by refusing to allow the owner access or warning him off from trying to stop the seizure if there were not valid sealed court orders present. I note there was a PNC request made checking someone's details made @ 0937 on the 19th. Which suggests someone had become of interest to the officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geo Rising Star

Geo

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

And that furthered the conversation how exactly?

 

As for your knowledge, most of it appears made up on the hoof or a straight copy/paste from a Google search, such as your post above about mineral rights. I could pretend that I'm clever by stating that "coal, by virtue of S.9 of the Coal Industry Act 1994 vests ownership in the coal Authority. And that all the rights in petroleum including mineral oil and natural gas found beneath or on a landowners property are property of the crown under S.2 Petroleum Act 1998. Also that the Crown is entitled to all gold and silver found in gold and silver mines on or beneath anyone’s property." But I had to spend 5 minutes looking it up.

 

So not sure for the reasons for your personal remark. I find your remarks interesting, no googling, just a quick check in a book in my bookcase of something I knew but had not checked in years. I would not rely on google for definitive law as it quietly changes on occasion. Of course as I posted

 

 

 

Surely the rights to oil, gas, coal, gold and silver are owned by the state, or old fashioned by the Crown and recovering them is by a licence granted by the Crown or State

 

All rights are owned by the State whether that be defined as the Crown or the Government which defines a department to act on its behalf. As for furthering the conversation it imparted the present situation regarding the ownership of the specific minerals etc and correct some misunderstanding of the situation.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been ill and not near a computer for days.

 

ETA to correct double quote

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Nigel do you have a complete copy of the survey if so could you either PM or email me a copy, I am interested in the general state of the vessel bearing in mind, if I remember correctly, there was a comment by possibly CRT that the vessel was not safe etc and was one of the reasons on top of the money interest for the seizure.

 

PM me your email Geo, and I will send it when I can. Internet where I am is driving me crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Davis Veteran

Graham Davis

Posted
Posted

Do you not think the recorded telephone conversation between Ben White and Alan Roberts is significant? He more or less admits that some people present at the seizure were posing as High Court Enforcement Officers I think.

 

Is that recording in the public domain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

The Police would attend only to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace. Even if attending at the request of "High Court Enforcement Officers" (which, in this case, it would appear they were not (Read this both ways!) ), the Police would not get involved in the actual seizure.

Actually, under English law there are circumstances where police may assist bailiffs. I don't believe that those circumstances apply to Planet.

 

If Alan Roberts gains an outright win tomorrow then it will call into question Meseyside Police actions simply because they recorded that they were 'assisting' one of the parties.

 

Geo has just recognised that a PNC (Police National Computer) check was carried after someone exited the ship. On the assumption that this check was carried out on the single occupant of the ship at the time of seizure, I suspect questions might be asked as to why checks were not carried out on those purporting to be bailiffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

read where?

Hi Mike,

 

My apologies. I thought that Alan Roberts claim had been posted on this forum in another thread.

 

I do have a copy from someone who has been banned by this forum and feel that it would be inappropriate to post without permission.

 

However, Paul C has a copy and hpefully does not suffer similar constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.